Not crazy at all! I like creative concepts like this, if they will likely offer better long-term strategic results at little extra costs (but with more insurance, etc). 😀

F 7 is already training base for international Gripen customer crews? So I guess even if Norway decided on 100% Gripen fleet originally, maybe Sweden could veto training RNoAF if they disagreed with a Norwegian policy? I doubt it. I think that would be included under the so-called ‘offset’ benefit, which is gained in a hypothetical contract deal. (e.g., it could smartly be negotiated in the front-end MOU, before signing papers).

Anyway the merit of the idea doesn’t sound irrational at all, imho – as you’ve mentioned some good examples for including expanded strategic thinking and long-term doctrine flexibility.

I’d just think the order numbers you presented might be slightly high though. Perhaps 35x F-35 and 20x NG for a total of 55 a/c?

Here’s one more crazy idea for you, conceived just now in pondering this plan of yours. Since it’s not practical or sustainable to really have a small (cute-sized) force structure (e.g. 20 F-35s or something), as an AF would need some training conversion units, test a/c, attrition, and the actual operational fighter squadron! How about 3-4 potential regional operators collaborate and negotiate a joint procured and joint operated Training Conversion Unit? Maybe each contributing AF of such a plan could buy 3-4 jets for the unit (not sufficient if a unique training force). But multiply by 4 operators and viola, each AF equally shares 16 jets for Training! Then, you could buy 25-30 jets as the national operational unit, thus saving euros for your NG complement? Every 4 yrs or so, maybe the joint training unit could relocate to a different country (to share any advantage of having a home-based mult-force training infrastructure)?

It’d be far better to have 56 F-35s than a mix totalling 55, and just keep the training as it has been done in the past.

Yes agreed, the F-15E could very well hold its own.
The F-15E is a great striker, which history shows.
But against units like Su-35S it would not hold its own.

I don’t think high assets like the Su-34 are left alone without escort regarding any mission where it could face F-15/16 etc etc.

If one need a stand-off bomber or something closer to CAS, the Su-34 wins hand down any given day.

With APG-82/AIM-120D/etc… it should be able to hold its own. At the merge it’d obviously be at the disadvantage, but w/ JHMCS and AIM-9X, it still couldn’t be taken lightly.

What’s inaccurate about the defense budget remark? The RuAF is hardly rolling in the dough.

AESA can be installed on the Su-34, but it’s PESA is specially designed for A2G ops and should be very good at such tasks. There is no way to prove or disprove if an AESA here would be better.

NCW abilities all depend on the onboard equipment, so none of that is much of an issue – it’s a customer choice thing.

Other than that, the SDB is an interesting weapon that makes US aircraft unique in that aspect – everything else the Su-34 can cover.

For A2G I agree, but for A2A/EA I’m gonna have to give the edge to the APG-82 over the Su-34s set.

All of the E models are going to be upgraded with new avionics, so how exactly do you think that they’ve reached the top? You still haven’t addressed the variety of weapons, or how the cockpit layout of the Su-34 is awful if you have to tangle with another fighter.

what ever Isreal do, I would know they wouldnt mind having a couple of Squadrons of GR4’s – it’s the kind of job it could do so well.

They have quite a few F-15Is already.

Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, but they’re not entitled to their own facts. If eyewitness accounts, BDA, and video analysis isn’t sufficient, then there’s no hope.